STAR TREK 2 3D 5/17/13!

While plot details are being kept completely under wraps (though there is rampant speculation by me that Benicio Del Toro has been cast as the leader of the Gorn), Deadline has learned that J.J. Abrams's second STAR TREK film will be released on May 17th, 2013. It will also be shot in 3D.

STAR TREK 2 is taking the weekend initially claimed by Roland Emmerich's SINGULARITY, which recently delayed its production start date to accomodate script revisions by Mr. Technological Singularity himself, Raymond Kurzweil. The May 17th, 2013 release will give STAR TREK a two-week separation from IRON MAN 3, which is currently set for May 3rd. It's a long wait, but I'm glad Abrams and co-writers Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci didn't rush their script into production.

It seems to me that the Vulcans need a new homeworld. Carol Marcus probably exists in the new timeline, but David most assuredly does not. I'm very interested to see how losing their planet changes the race and very character of the Federation.

on the flipside, the handheld in Super 8 was kept to a bare minimum so if he slows down his style a bit (which, miraculously, freakin' Michael Bay was able to do for Transformers) then I don't mind Trek in 3D.

Has anyone else seen it? Man, that black captain is so spacey. I understand that he's smart and deeply into his music, but I'm not sure how Shatner kept a straight face. Then when Shatner started ad libbing along with the music, I started feeling really uncomfortable. Otherwise it was a pretty interesting movie.
Looking forward to ST2 though. Me likee BenDelTor. He's always great.

"Captain, yooooou have losssst! Admit it to yourself! I shallll be muuurseeefulllll... And quick!"
Maybe I'm just a sap for TOS but I love the Gorn in all his rubber-suited, lizard-like glory.
...plus without the Gorn, we'd never have "Gorn Rock" in the collective consciousness for Bill and Ted to encounter later. Good chuckle, that.

Think about it; if it's in 3D, then you can bet Abrams and all will want to try out the latest mocap, and finally give us Trekkies *alien* aliens, not more multiple-clitoris-headed Klingons. Rise of the Planet of the Apes raised the bar permanently, as did District 9.

Who is going to flip the bill? TV is different. Unless it's reality or has almost no budget if a show doesn't do well within the first few weeks... It's done. You think a Star Trek show will get good ratings in the world of DVR and online downloading etc. No it wouldn't. Neilson now simply "tracks" what older white females watch mainly.
They have to go movie route with Star Trek now because it would be impossible to make a show work. SyFy would be the only chance but they have turned to hacks. Mainly looking for B-movie material. Maybe a mini-series... That's a huge maybe I don't even think that is possible.

The majority of them suffer from a condition known as folliculitis, a skin disorder that results in crusty pustules and inflammation.
"Why does that happen?", you may ask.
I'll tell you why.
It's those damned skin tight (and fruity looking) unitards they like to play dress up with.
Eventual hair loss from the neck down is also highly probable.
Logical, these fans are not, knowing the risks, and eventual outcome that's coming their way.

I think going back to the Kirk/Spock well is lame given the enormous universe that Trek has created but if they're going to do it, they're not going to start off with a Kirk who is older than Shatner was in the original series.

Arise and come forth to splain yourself oh Patron Saint of Mediocrity.
Actually...I'm surprised if it is the Gorn; I wouldn't have thought Alex, Bob and that other guy would actually take a chance on one of the lessor known Trek characters...

I thought the point of the reboot was to get to tag along on this crew's first years. By the time the sequel comes out they'll be done with their five year mission, Kirk will be an admiral, Spock will be pursuing Kulinar, and McCoy will be a hermit, like The Motion Picture. Give the franchise to a director WHO HAS THE DAMN TIME FOR IT. And who's actually seen a couple episodes of the show.

they need to fix the problems with Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman first attempt:
no more brewery in Engineering - one shuttle, not 50 ... phasers that emit beams of LIGHT - not pulse bullets ... cool SOUNDS like in the original show ... no dumb rock-monster sidekick ... restore Vulcan (time travel and then never again) ... switch Karl Urban to Spock (cast Quinto as a villain), lose Simon Pegg (cast that guy from Rome) as Scotty, and Stever Buscemi or Gary Sinise as Dr. McCoy ... no Zoe Saldana - replace with Gabriel Union ... kill Chekov character, please ... and go to more of the 60s look

I love TNG, but their movies got progressively worse. Love the series still.
The fresh cast doesn't surpass the original, but it's the 21st century, and we get new Star Trek material. All good on my end.

Some people love it. Some people hate it. I'm a twenty-something and don't care for it. Don't get me wrong, some films benefit from it. Avatar was great. BUT for most films, even effects-heavy blockbusters, it's simply not worth the extra cost. Honestly, it doesn't add anything to the experience, and in most cases, is a distracting device. Not only that, but exporting all of Hollywood's films into 3D makes it a cheap gimmicky commodity instead of an exclusive experience reserved for the films that benefit from it. Hollywood fail.

They scream for Azimov to save them with his epic vitrol but all has been for lost as boborci has arrived first..... TREMBLE IN FEAR HATERS! But seriously I'm stoked for the next Trek. Haters go find something better to do with your time like getting laid or watching Scott Pilgrim again. Nuff said.

They can pop out new Potter films every other year. The original films never took this long for sequels. Thanks for taking your damn time! So this means we'll never see anything trek on tv as a series for at least another three to four years depending on the success of 2.

a shape indecipherable, intentions well known, his base appeasing thoughts projected on a screen near you...
Greetings bob....and don't take that tone with me...I'm one of the few here, or anywhere else, who take my shots while still respecting the hell out of you.
So tell us of great scribe to the tasteless, vulgar, salivating easily pleased masses..what news do you bring? Is it the Gorn?

Every one of the Trek casts had a chance to "bond" with their roles over a period of years and many TV episodes. This cast has made 1 feature film in 2009 and now you're going 4 YEARS inbetween installments? That's just not going to work or keep the audience's interest going. They're at a disadvantage as it is launching this new franchise solely on the big screen, so the audience identification isn't nearly what it is for this cast as opposed to every one of the prior Trek shows.
Yes, it's great that they patiently waited to find "the right story" (though who knows that they actually found it), but there comes a point in which you strike while the iron is hot. It's cooled off to the point now where I think they waited much too long to keep it going.

And those of us who are True Trekkies know that the movies and tv series are not related or even under the same company. One is not delaying the other. Lack of interest from the television industry is delaying the other.

The only way that releasing a 3D version of any movie, especially one not coming out for 18(ish) months is to use the time travel from Star Trek 4, to go back to a time before the 3D fad died. Which was late 2009.

Well I feel fucking stupid, thinking it was the real one. Didn't think it was him at first, then after a few posts i bought into it.
but the thing is; I remember he was on a thread berating talkbackers for not using their real names, oh the irony.

I'd say JJ Abrams killed it for good once and for all, and in it's stead we have this weird chimera zombie made from parts of SW, parts of The Wrath Of Khan and parts of Felicity. Star Trek is dead. It's Abrams Trek that lives.

They showed progress. Humans weren't static. Tech evolved. Hugely. Which is how it should be. Compare this with TREK where they mostly had the same devices/tech/weapons by the end of TNG they started out with in TOS. And this covers about 90 YEARS! Even the Enterprise 'D', though larger, doesn't give a feel of being faster or more powerful. If anything, it tended to fall apart if someone looked at it sideways.

Herzog has made one 3D movie, the documentary CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS (though he has vowed to never do it again), and i suspect that if Kubrick was alive, he would feel tempted to use 3D in one of his movies, and he would do with it what he did for the steadycam in THE SHINNING.
However, i agree with you in that 3D is being over-used (and for the wrong reasons) and it doesn't really bring all that much to the movies, it's more hype then anyting else. I'm pretty fed up with 3D too.

I have issues with the first Abrams trek but it could be awesome if they took it in a more sci-fi direction. It's heartening to hear Kurzweil is involved... maybe they're going to give us some more V'ger!?!? Considering the scale of V'Ger and the fact that it doesn't require beaming down to any rocky planets, it sounds ideal for 3D.
I'd love to see a Star Trek movie without any deserts or grassy fields in it. I am a space movie fiend and my favourite recent sci-fi movie was CARGO which I think is from France. The whole thing takes place on a giant space station.

Good writing. But, for some strange reason, storytelling doesn't seem to be a high priority for Hollywood these days. Were the writers of the 'Start Trek' script really happy with the final draft, or did they look at it and say, "Jesus, this thing is full of nonsensical plot-holes and ridiculous coincidences, but the audience is probably too dumb to spot them, so this thing's good to go"?

first, the space scenes in the previous star trek were fantastic, watching them on bluray makes my eyes melt.
second, the 3D in transformers dark of the moon (and im refereing specifically to the opening on cybertron and the scenes on the moon) where brilliant.
so i for one, am very excited about the next trek being 3D. it could be amazing . . . . .

Using the Gorn makes some sense. They have ZERO backstory, no history, no way for JJ to totally fuck over Trek canon by rewriting a species storyline. Here he can just create his own and not piss off the loyalists. Yet the Gorn was man in suit so I have to assume Del-Toro wasnt hired to be hidden in a suit so....this will be some fucked up make-up job which wont be faithful to the original therefore again pissing off the loyalists.

is because it gives me migraines and I can't watch them. It is overused, but I could probably get on board with some of it if I could actually enjoy it. Got a 3ds on a Chanukah night last year and a migraine hit after 30 minutes--so it's not just the films that does it.

CARGO is a swiss-german production. The majority of the filmmakers in that movie are swiss. Many evne call it a swiss movie, and it's not 100% so only because of the money the germans poured in.
And i liked the movie quite a lot. The fact the movie is spoken in german did gave it a bit of a exotic flavour to it. And the fwact the filmakers were heavily influenced by both 2001: a Space Oddyssey and Alien (with a little bit of Blade Runenr thrown in for good measure) sure didn't hurt either. I think many people in here would enjoy CARGO if they knew about it.

LOL. Does AICN get paid to help with Bad Robot's PR campaign of misdirection on who the Crap Trek 2 villain is? Do people actually think Academy Award winning actor Benicio del Toro is going to play a lizard? Jesus.
It's common knowledge in Hollywood casting circles that the villain will be Khan.

But wish it hadn't taken so long to get around to it. I don't want them to rush either. However that being said some do have a point that in a franchise you do have to keep the item in people's minds as a current thing and 4 years is a bit long. I imagine that the interest would continue no matter how long it was but 3 years is an average time for this sort of thing.
The good part is now 2013 isn't that far.

Your complains about 3D are the same as mine. 3D also gives me migrane and eyesore. Fortunatly i don't suffer other side effects the 3D can give, like negating perception of depth that some people suffer from after they come out of a 3D show.
Don't let the fact that CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS is in 3D dissuade you from watch it. Herzog was convinced (and just for this once) to use the format because the subject of the movie, those cave paintings in that french cave, those paintings were made taking into account the natural rock formation. Basically, the cave men painters did utilize the shape of the rocks to influence the painting itself. It's impossible to fully appreciate those paintings without taking into account the rock itself. It's painting with volume. So, 3D was the only option for Herzog to truly show off the beauty of those paintings, which are, in fact, the oldest known work of art known to us. As such, the 3D in that Herzog movie is fully justified.
And then Herzog said he will never work with 3D again. So no, he has not surrended to the fashion of the moment. He just used the technology for a very good reason. for the sake of the movie itself and most important, for the sake of the subject. That's more then can be said about everybody else who has utilized 3D, and that includes Cameron and his AVATAR movie.

The term "franchise" can not apply to movies. That aside, it's a disgusting term in this context. It's Hollywood suit lingo. The dopes in the media use it because they're think-less amoebas. The average movie-going moron uses it because he just likes lacing his dialogue with all the latest meaningless buzz words like "step up" and such.

The notion that boborci is an imposter does gain a lot of weight from the posts he makes.
Or it could be that the real Orci is far stupidier and crass then I imagined him to be.
Both are valid possibilities.

If the general audiences had been as receptive as the AICN folk here, C&A would had been alast at the box ofice, given the ass kissing that movie got in here.
Be careful of insulting the people here, Bobby boy, or the 3% became 1%.. or 0%.

Plus..the blunt, one and two word snarky replies are the same Hipster Hollywood Bullshit as he posts over at Trekmovie. Now don't hate him for that manner of replying, it's not his fault. Almost everyone in the industry talks like a fucking movie/tv cliched douche; they have to do it, it is part of the Contract when you sign your soul over.
Don't believe me...drop by any bar in Los Feliz, every fucker in it will sound like a fucking character out of Entourage...seriously.
Anyway Bob...nice to see you back here. So..."WHAT" is Benicio...surely JJ hasn't tied your points to keeping you mouth sewn shut. Come on brother...tell us.

the fucker just isn't the same without the man God's Willard Scott or Al Roeker. Fuck the people on there recently..and Fuck NBC for trashing the EPIC original Turkey Day Parade Theme.
And why in the Fuck is Cee lo Green Lip Synching...fucking Amateur fuck. The shit has really gone downhill since the 80's.
Where is my Baileys and Coffee?

3d gives me a headache
Hope they release it in 2d theaters as well
Hope since the five year mission is already over that the Enterprise gets a bit of a refit to tone down that (skinny) fugly secondary hull (needs more belly and move the connecting neck up a bit on the secondary hull it should be more forward) and she needs the engines to have the more Pinky-orange rotating look. It can be updated and look cool. I do like that the new E is 1200 meters.
Hope there is less shouting and manic sprinting with odd shakey camera angles
Hope there is less lensflares and less lighbulbs on the bridge. (the overly bright lighting may be good for short attention span ridllin dummies but it takes away from the emotion and drama.)
Hope Scotty is not completely bald by the time they film in Jan
Hope Simon Pegg is less jokey-schmaltzy. Scotty was a badass in the original series and next to Kirk threw the best one punch knockout
Hope Kirks actually whups some ass. Kirk should always be able to personally beat 1-3 guys asses at a time no matter who it may be (except Spock) Kirk is the best fighter in all of Sci-Fi and his dropkick has no equal.
Shatner Kirk could kick Batman’s ass all over the place (FACT)
Hope there is an actual alien intelligence to deal with in the backdrop of intergalactic conflict. Perhaps the alien intelligence brings intergalactic conflict, perhaps it helps end it (Maybe both). That's Star Trek though. Not brooding B list revenge villian of the week.
Hope if they are really doing Space Seed that they incorporate some of the original Star Trek II script that showed Khan setting himself up as a type of Intergalactic Messiah (Mo Ha Deeb) . And in the original Trek II script Khan has peeled off chunks of the Federation with his own fleet and armies. And that there are two Demi-God aliens in the middle of all this that Khan is trying to use or manipulate.
(that was the original Trek II script folks)

... Here's what I'm thinking; The Gorn are slaves to the Klingons, reared primarily for the purpose of bloodsports.
Kirk, Spock and the rest of the away team are captured and forced to battle the Gorn in a gladiatorial-style battle to the death. Paying homage to the TOS ep "Arena".
in the end the Gorn and The Enterprise Crew have to put aside their differences to escape the Arena and defeat the Klingons.
Predictable, but nevertheless IMO enjoyable.

You be carefukl yourself asimovlives! You're talking about what audiences are most receiptive to? Well most liked Star Trek 2009 and yet you in the extreme minority want us all to think like you. Which we don't.

Engineering will look even more pathetic now! It'll be more obvious that they just plopped computer consoles in front of giant vats of beer. I can't wait for the illusion to be spoiled all over again!
Stupid fucking mistake, that brewery. If Abrams, Orci and company can still somehow rationalize using a stupid fucking brewery as their "engineering" section, imagine all the other stupid fucking things they can imagine.
We need to get this franchise out of the hands of these ignorant assholes before they fuck it irreparably. The last one was tolerable, but how many sequels are better than the first? Very few. And these guys aren't really that talented. They got lucky with a big budget and good cast, but this time more attention will be paid to details like STORY and a GIANT FUCKING BREWERY in the bowels of the ship!
And let's not forget Scotty's stupid fucking EWOK! Wouldn't George Lucas be proud of that! I suppose the next Trek will have fucking Jar Jar in it! Maybe Jar Jar can play Yeoman Rand! Put him in that red miniskirt, black hose and boots, and we'll never know it's just Jar Jar dressed up with a blond wig.
"Meesa wondering what Captain Kirk could want?" says Jar Jar/Rand, thrusting out his padded breasts.
Shit man, Abrams thinks we wouldn't notice because we didn't notice they were producing Miller Lite in the belly of the Enterprise. Only we DID notice, fucktards! Add a little to your fucking budget this time around and give us a futuristic engineering section!
Better yet, quit the movie. Get Star Trek back on TV where it belongs, and put smarter people in charge. The shine is gonna wear off of your Trek, and people will realize they've been watching second-rate storytelling, all wrapped up in a glossy package.
If you twits don't fucking hit this next one out of the ballpark, it'll just be one of your MANY failures on TV and in the theaters. Get a clue, bozos. Your shit ain't that good.

Wealthy as shit, maybe, but still stupid. Like Todd McFarlane stupid. I know McFarlane, and they don't come much more stupid. And if Orci is stupid enough to come here and talk to stupid fucking idiots like us, the man probably has trouble lighting a match after he's taken a wicked dump. And this is one of the major architects behind Star Trek. God help us all.

I'm not a big fan of the cliche recycling that TV usually is..... I guess everyone here likes their trek with all kinds of overdone evil clones stories, coma inducing political dialog, and suprisingly unscentific technobable. Like I said you got nearly 2 decades worth of combined TNG, DS9, Voyager, & Enterprise..... I got bored after about the 4th season of TNG.....

Shit sakes if that shit WAS that sucessful we would have had DS9, Voyager, & Enterprise based movies.... But the audience shrank with each passing mutation b/c Trek became too much formula and not much entertaining........

Is those figures supposed to impress me? Are you kidding me? Can you even think the implications of those numbers? First of all, those are average numbers for blockbusters. Secondly, the foreign market is 33% of the total box office. And least we forget, there's 6 billion people living abroad the USA. Which just makes those foreign numbers extremely pitiful.
The masturbation party about Jar Jar Abrams's Retard Trek is an american party. Just because you Jar Jar lovers love to go cognitive dissonant on reality doens't mean the rest of the people have too. Yes, i don't get a break... from idiocity!

As if the brewery wasn't stupid enough, Abrams Trek also shoved product placement as well. Nokia and Budwiesser being the most obvious. This assclowns who made Abrams Trek really seem to have a problem understanding even the most basic thing about the unibverse of Star trek. And the paralel universe lame excuse can't justify the product placement either.
I'm actually suprised that in the movie we don't see the Enterprise crew holding a Bud can while they are on the bridge.

True, lens manufacturers have spent millions developing coatings to help reduce/eliminate it, so going out of one's way to re-introduce it makes little sense, but I don't care, really. What bothered me about the first Abrams TREK film was what can only be called "cinematography by epileptics" which had the camera shaking all over the place and made the battle scenes VERY hard to follow.

Population density is far greater in the US than it is say in Europe so you would expect the numbers to be smaller for the rest of the world. That and the fact that there are less developed countries elsewhere that wouldn't really catch on to Science Fiction itself. So I'm wondering what is the percentage of the average well selling SF movie in comparasion? Do you have figures to challenge this? I say ST did pretty good worldwide and you are wrong in your assumption.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek.htm
Here's your favorite ST movie to compare. Even adjusting the numbers for todays money value would show that the foreign market is smaller. The exception might be Avatar but that was an exception in many ways itself.
So let's try anoither : http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=aliens.htm
Oh now look we're gtting similar results again. Oh well! LOL!

"Population density is far greater in the US than it is say in Europe"
You are not that ignorant, are you? Europe is known since ever to be the most densely populated continent. A population at least twice and half the USA (including european Russia) in a territory of the about same size of USA. now, pray tell me, how the fuck can you calculate it like you did? Do you even know basic mathematics? Where the hell you learned european geography? From the middle earth map found in the LOTR books?

1.) Most big Hollywood films tend to perform BETTER internationally due to the simple fact that there are, I don't know, more people. Just look at the numbers for any of the Transformers films. Hell, look at the first week numbers for Breaking Dawn.
2.) Mentioning the international gross for Star Trek is meaningless. None of the previous films have performed well overseas. It is still largely a cult series. Similar to Doctor Who in the States.
The latest entry reestablished the characters to audiences globally. The real test will be the next movie. Sequels almost always gross more outside the US. Pirates 4 is a prime example.
Bringing up Inception is irrelevant as well. DiCaprio is a huge star abroad thanks largely to Titanic. If he had played Captain Kirk, ST would have probably tripled its' foreign box office.
3.) Where is this Taylor Lautner news coming from? That link goes to a C&C Music Factory clip. Bull I say.

"and like a baseball movie, who the hell cares what the europeans think? cracking the asian market might be a good idea tho."
Exactly. And still they keep seeling those to markets in which the game has absolutly zero approval rating. And with accordingly box office results, as in, pretty crappy.
And baseball movie metaphor is quite apt because Jar Jar Abrams, unlike Nolan with his Batman movies and Inception, made a movie completly and only for the american market, which is pure stupidity in regard to blockbusters, because nowdays most of the money cames from foreign markets. Filmmakers and studios in holywood they better start realising that if they make blockbusters, they nbetter start making movies that also have international appeal, and stop the stupid regionalisic attitude they had so far. If hack fucls like Jar Jar Abrams can ever compreend that concept is another matter.
And thr argument that ST is just an american thing and only has american appeal is stupid and a lazy ass excuse from fuck ass hacks to justify their incompetence and stupidity. ST is not american, ST is GLOBAL.

And if they introduced Yeoman Rand and Nurse Chapel both as hotties and have them do a three way with Uhura and do a bit of the lesbian sexy nasty, that would also improve the movie a hell of a lot.
But Jar Jar Abrams is more into male gay shit.

Are you and Kurtzman going to take your time and write a good script this time, or just another vehicle for douche-baggery and lens flares?
Here's a specific example of douche-baggery: that kobayashi maru scene where you decided to inject hilarity but just fell flat on your face and made everyone look like assholes. Not only did your childish bumbling sully your main Character as a blatant cheat, not someone who thought outside the box, but your intelligent character (Spock) came off as an extreme fool for not realizing it right away. As a result you threw dirt at a favorite plot element of Star Trek 2! Way to go buddy!
<P>
Are you capable of presenting Kirk as a brilliant strategist and commander and not just someone who yells "GO GO GO", "We kill them, or they kill us." (He's George W Bush in spaaaaaaacccceee)
<P>
Are you capable of writing Spock as a subtle character and not an Emo whiny baby?
<P>
Yes it'll be shot in 3d sure enough, but will it be written in 3d? --Well I doubt it.
<P>
I really don't think you are cable of it and I KNOW you and Kurtzman are shoe-horning bad dialog into this shell of a villain you've labeled KHAN. That's right. The Gorn? Ha! Not with this director, writers, and studio. It'll be Khan and his cohorts sure enough. Paramount knows that's what'll sell, and JJ wants to remake Wrath of Khan sooo bad, because he doesn't have a true voice, he's just a poor Xerox machine.
<P>
Well you don't get my money anymore. Good Day Sir!

It seems more likely that there's a direct correlation between the large number of people who enjoyed the movie and those who were too stupid to follow it; ergo that latter group must have been much, **much** larger than half of the people who saw it...

no wife no kids no girlfriends. and his scenes with vash, though fun, have no sexual tension whatsoever.
hes either asexual (they do exist) or deep in the closet. or that pole up his ass is so deeply imbedded that noone else is getting a shot.

Ok then how do account for the fact that movies thaty are considered hugely popular like Aliens or even your favorite ST movie have similar results? What are you comparing this to?
Movies like Inception and Avatar were hugely popular across the board. The latest ST film was the first to even begin to break into this territory. Your beloved ST the way it was did ANY of them even come close to it's sucess? Where's your logic? What are you comapring it to?
I used to own a book called " How To Lie With Statistics ". It taught me that when somewone makes a statement to look at the fine print. Someone can make anything sound like anything until you look at the frame of reference. So when you are implying that the latests ST movie didn't do well in foreign markets compared to what? Some of the most popular movies or ones that are in the genre of context?

Not sure the point you're trying to make in general, but for a big-budget film like Shit Trek, $128m in overseas grosses is embarrassingly small.
This debate has gone on repeatedly in ST talkbacks and it isn't really a debate. Shit Trek made some modest amount of money for Bad Robot and Paramount, but it was modest at best relative to what it should be for a movie this big. Shit Trek basically underperformed.

Can make a successful first weekend. After that word of mouth takes over. I can deal with the fact that many people didn't like it. Seems some folks have a hard time accepting that others did...and in sufficient numbers to make a sequel a slam-dunk. Doesn't make the movie "good" because there IS no objective measure for quality in films. You thought it was bad. Fine. I thought it was good, and so did 95% of critics on RT. None of that means it was "good"--but nor do the complaints of a few Talkbackers make it "bad." I know, I know, the world isn't fair. Lensflare. They changed the timeline. Waaahhhhhh.

Half of those 95% were part of the marketing target.
The other half are dumber-than-doorposts midwestern tornado bait who starting writing movie reviews fresh out 4H club.
Star Trek (2009) was an objectively awful film and you should feel bad for liking it.

Totally agree.
Anyway, I just want this movie to be good and hopefully they can crank out at least a trilogy from this cast and creative team.
I feel like they dropped the ball a bit waiting this long to get the sequel rolling but whatever. It's on track now so let the slow hype begin.
The rumors of Del Toro joining the cast is a kick-ass way to get the fans talking again.

JJ should do something ballsy like make this new reality the mirror universe from the original series. Have Quinto grow a goatee and put Zoe in the bare midriff outfit. Pine could pull off the arrogant/evil Kirk and I bet Cho could do a backstabbing Sulu.

$385,680,446 is shitty?
I'm sorry but that's a really stupid statement.
And asi is a troll. He comes here with the same old tired arguments about everything JJ has any conection to and why? We've his ramblings before. They'll be making plenty more ST if this next one does well as did the last. That's not going to change as long as audiences like it. And like I said the haters here are in the minority. So why are you guys still finding a need to attack this film. You didn't like it. Most people did. End of story.
Plus what imagin78 said made a lot of sense so let me quote that post again :
" 1.) Most big Hollywood films tend to perform BETTER internationally due to the simple fact that there are, I don't know, more people. Just look at the numbers for any of the Transformers films. Hell, look at the first week numbers for Breaking Dawn.
2.) Mentioning the international gross for Star Trek is meaningless. None of the previous films have performed well overseas. It is still largely a cult series. Similar to Doctor Who in the States.
The latest entry reestablished the characters to audiences globally. The real test will be the next movie. Sequels almost always gross more outside the US. Pirates 4 is a prime example.
Bringing up Inception is irrelevant as well. DiCaprio is a huge star abroad thanks largely to Titanic. If he had played Captain Kirk, ST would have probably tripled its' foreign box office. "

I hear you, man. Abrams wasn't even a Star Trek fan. The man likes Star Wars, that's pretty obvious. And as much of a Trekkie as Orci claims to be, it didn't really show. But that may just be that he can't write.
They stripped Trek of its intellect in favor of action, whereas truly skilled writers and directors could have given us both. Instead we're served up the sloppiest Trek science ever, and heaped upon that we get wild story inconsistencies, unbelievable coincidences, and characters acting nothing like their prototypes.
A turd wrapped in silk is still a turd. Even if it's full of yummy corn.

If psychotic knee jerk JJ hater Asi (maybe he was forced into intensive therapy when that "Lost" finale made him want to kill or die) wants to bitch about NuTrek grosses overseas, let's please remember the fact that his beloved cheezetacular original "ShatTrek" and "TNG" flicks NEVER did much biz overseas. While Trek on TV has been exported to most countries, it isn't the "hit" it is in North America. It's one of those uniquely "American" properties that doesn't "travel" well overseas.
Fact is "NuTrek" did BETTER overseas (in actual $ and percentage of overall gross) than ANY previous Trek flick, even accounting for inflation. No matter what you do or who you cast or who directs a "Trek" property, it will NEVER Gross overseas like a "Transformer" flick (overseas gross more than double the gross of NA) or "Inception" (again I believe more than double overseas the NA gross). Some movies travel well overseas, some don't (very "AMERICAN" comedies and talky, ironic hipster "art/Sundance-y" flicks are also prone to gross less overseas).

Asimov lives is right about it only being a success in the US. Elsewhere in the world it did so so business and was forgotten about by the time you got home from the cinema. JJ Abrams is a TV Producer and a very good one. He's been telling you what you want to hear for years now and most of you are lapping it up. The 'New Spielberg' thing is based on nothing more than the box-office takings of his (mostly shoddy and artistically void) movies. He's no better a film-maker than Peter Berg or Stephen Sommers, he just sells them a lot better.

It doesnt change the fact that it is a manufactured product with the sole purpose to sell tickets to the mainstream masses.A glossy package of artificial emotions,kindergarten drama,intellectual prose and zero content.
If Michael Bay and his likes killed good,quality,entertainment cinema with their cinematic garbages,hacks like JJ and Orci put the final nail to its coffin.The difference is that at least with an atrocious director like Bay, you know what kind of fast food entertainment he serves and how terrible his movie is going to be.
But with the writers of the Xena and Hercules fame and a director who thinks he is the next Spielberg because he shares the same ethnicity with him,you are introduced to something far worse and more insulting: a mediocre,shallow work of cinematic entertainment which ravages the corpse of a dead franchise,steals its best qualities and has the nerve to force itself as its renovated successor while spitting on the face of the true fans.
And all the Box Office money will never change this fact.never.

You cna believe the fictional bullshit of your chosing. Just don't expect others to do too.
The first St movie to break into the minstream was STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, which was a very sucessful movie at the box office, despiste the bullshit dogma about it. It was that movie's sucess that made Paramount aware they had a franchise on their hands, which they acted upon it with by greenlighting a sequel. And also give birth to the notion that ST could continue on TV as well.
As i said before, you chose to believe the bulslhit you want, just don't expect them to either correspond to reality and others to follow suite. Believe all your beloved bullshit about your beloved bullshit Abrams Trek dreack movie, if that makes oyu happy. Be happy to contribute to the dumbification of modern cinema. Good job, boy.

But Abrams Trek didn't made more money then the other movie sof the TOS series. In fact, in a budge/box office coeficient, Abrams Trek only did better then STAR TREK V, and not by much. All other TOS ST movies have made more. The issue being, that Abrams Trek is, by far, the most expensive ST movie ever made, even counting inflaction. And frankly, i say the real reasonfor the inflacted budget has to do with Abram's ineptituide at making a movie. How else to exaplin such a gigantic budget, and then they still needed to cut corners and shot the engine rom scenes in a brewery? Where the fuck the money went? 160 fucking million dollars, and this is the end result???

You said it, man. And this dumbified, Michael Bay version of ST, and i'm supposed to jump in happiness and hail it as the return of Star Trek? Looks more like the funeral of Star Trek, if you ask me.
When i heard people being happy about this movie because "at least it's a new Star Trek movie and that's enough for me" excuse, i wanted just to ask them "don't you even care how it's presented? If it has some degree of faithfulness to at the very least the theme and spirit of ST?".
Frankly, the pervasive attitude seems to be of "that will do". That will do, and they are happy as lemmings. I don't get it. I don't get this attitude. It's mind slavery.

Makes no sense, because Paramount howns the ST rights.
Paramount just wanted to kickstart a new movie franchise, because they are beret of those. ST is their baby. But in their "wisdom" the Paramount head honchos decided to present it as Michael Bay "hip" instead of do it properly.
Funny enough, ST is now in the same hands of the guys who are now also handling the Mission Impossible franchise, the other cash-cow from Paramount.

And it looks like now the detractors are in a majority and with a louder voice, less fearful of saying their piece. This is good. I just wish this had been so when the fucking movie was released back in the day. It would had made for a good counterpoint to the madness that reign back then.
Well, better late then never.

J.J. Abrams was one of the last director's who used to shoot their movies on actual film. Now that Star Trek 2 will be in 3D he will change to crappy digital cameras and it will show... good bye, great visuals.

Not at all. I think that box office equals the fact that a lot of people liked it. There are terrible movies that made tons of money.
I think Star Trek was fun because I enjoyed it. I think it was a "good movie" because enough people I respect enjoyed it--and trust me, we all saw the holes. I've WRITTEN a damned Star Trek novel, and know the mythos just fine. Loved the original series, and felt sad to see it getting old and tired. They gave it a big jolt of energy and I found myself having fun, dammit.
Flaws? Sure! But I had a great time at the movies for two hours, and that's a good movie. Now...was it a good "film"? Naw. But none of the Trek movies were "good films" although The Motionless Picture sure had aspirations. Khan was a helluva good flick, and the Whales were great fun. I understand that many felt it violated canon, but I feel that J.J. did that to get some room to have creative space. I totally respect those who didn't like it. I hope you enjoy the next one more. But I know lots of professional SF writers, and many of 'em thought it was worth purchasing. None of them thought it was a classic. Not everything has to be.

You wrote re: JTrek:
"A glossy package of artificial emotions,kindergarten drama,intellectual prose and zero content"...
Funny, anyone who's NOT a social retard, costume wearing, convention going, Shatner stalking, loser dweebasaur, Spock ear wearing, filksinging social misfit "Trekkie" would have said the EXACT same thing about ShatTrek back when it was churning out sequels, TV spinoffs etc., minus the "glossy" part...ShatTrek, even movie ShatTrek, ALWAYS looked a bit cheezy (Even "Khan" had a side order of Ham Vs Ham acting) or just an "undercooked" look production wise (ST:TMP).
Trek was and never will be Shakespeare or "high art"...it's American Alpha Male, rooted in the 60's pulp, pure and simple. Sure they PC'ed it up nicely with women and minorities and "humanist lip service" but at it's heart, it was always about "Kirk getting laid" and "putting the "American Hammer" down on the thinly veiled "commie baddies" etc.
JTrek is just a shinier newer, currently hipper "interpretation" of the source material. Problem is, the Loser ain'tGotNoLife "Trekkies" act like ShatTrek are holy Scrolls and it's BLASPHEMY to deviate from it. How many versions and "interpretations" of Shakespeare have there been? (any crazed "ShakeSPEARS Fangeek "defending the integrity of the Bard"?) How many variations of "Sherlock Holmes" have their been (the current Downey version changes "canon" significantly but you don't hear "ConanDoyleHeads" screaming for Richie's head on a platter like the MyopicTrekkies).
Don't like this Trek? Well, tough darts, it's popular (just not with YOU). A lot of you didn't like TNG or DS9 or Voyager or Pigs in Space or the Quantum Leap version. No worries, they'll be another version to come down the pike in 10 or 15 years (like all "franchises" it's probably good for a trilogy, then a misguided cash grab attempt to "stretch it" ala "Pirates" another movie or 2 before cast/creative changes). Face it, there will NEVER be a "reunion"of the old cast...they're too old/retired or DEAD. Fanboy wishes and caviar dreams won't change that nor take the creative reigns away from Team JJ for at least another movie or 2. Deal with it...
Fact is JTrek was no worse than ShatTrek. It just wasn't the "B Pulp" that your hardcore loser geeks were EXPECTING based on the 40 odd years of regurgitation you've been happily chewing on like a cow chewing it's cud. Get over it (or as some hack once said, "Get a LIFE!")...

M6Y - Bad Robot actually pays me based on how many angry responses I can generate here. If Asi goes ballistic, I get a bonus...
Killik - so it's a Mediocre reboot of a mediocre original. You just are unnaturally, unhealthily attached to the mediocre original that you think it's high art.
Jojo monkey - yes, the "dumb" lowest common denominator fans are the only one who respond to NuTrek...unlike the intellectual "gems" of ShatTrek involving Space Hippies, "why would God need a Spaceship", and Data bonding with a boy and his badly rendered pet CG rat-thing (not to mention Worf's acne problem) as they fight over the "fountain/planet of youth"....yes BRILLIANT literate entertainment for the ages...or how about the most super powerful, super sentient solar system sized artificial life form...who isn't smart enough to remove an oil smudge and realize it's name is "VOYAGER 6" not "V'ger".
Suddenly Red Matter/Black Hole Alternate Timeline Technobabble Basil Exposition Vulcan Blow'ed Up Real Good doesn't sound so bad (or farfetched).
Face it just because Trek went where YOU didn't want it to go doesn't make it "non valid" (because EVERY self deluded self important Trekkie thinks ONLY THEY KNOW where Trek SHOULD go...maybe you should be writing SlashFanFic...)...just means it gaining new fans, losing some old fans but is still viable entertainment. Maybe you'll enjoy the reboot of 2020 that Bryan Fuller or Seth MacFarlane wants to do...or maybe you'll be BEGGING for JJ to take the reigns back if you get "Pushing Family Guy Daisies in Space" Star Trek....

REally? How do you judge it against the abortion of ST5 or TMP (there's a reason it's referred to as "The Motionless Picture" and "The Motion Sickness") or any TNG flick other than "First Contact". By those metrics, JTrek is starting to look like Lord of the Effin' Rings...and Old Trek is starting to look like it SHAT on the art of film...for all the brickbrats you haters toss at NuTrek, if you looked at old trek flicks without the myopic "can overlook/not see all the tragic flaws" Geekster eye, aside from "Khan" and maybe "Contact" they all come across in varying degrees of cheeze and even crap. Most don't even feel like 'real' films but average or below average TV episodes with filler to stretch them out to feature length.

1) You're not the real Orci; a writer, t.v., film, novelist or otherwise would never lower themselves by giving short misspelled/abbreviated, crass written responses, I don't think their ego would allow it.
OR
2) You are the real Roberto Orci, and if that is the case, indicated by your posts here, means Alex Kurtzman must do most of the screenplay work.

are the straw-man arguments of the typical 'fan' of Abrams' Faux Trek (if a movie that bad can actually have fans): some of TOS or the movies were 'bad,' so Shit Trek 2009 wasn't bad by comparison. The Way to Eden and ST5 suck; therefore, Abrams' Shit Trek doesn't?
Yes, I would agree a plate of excrement compares more favorably with a garbage can full of discarded chicken entrails than it does with a steak dinner. You have a 'point' there.
Doesn't mean I'm gonna eat it.

It's suggested he got a commendation for original thinking, which to my ear suggests that young Kirk did it in a way that showed him to be a brilliant commander not captain lean back,"Test sucks dudes, I win" *eats apple*
<P>
The scene that Bob Orci, or Kurtzman, or Abrams cooked up came off as a a struggling attempt to add a few laughs and get through the moment quickly but the rush job made Kirk look like a childish jerk and everyone who didn't immediately recognize his actions as obvious tampering, idiots. It also didn't provide a real laugh but did take up very little screen time.
<P>
So I understand why they wrote it that way but it's also an example of how bad Orci and Kurtzman are at this. You don't always go with the easy beat especially if it paints your character wrong. Think of something else, you're getting paid plenty to.
<P>
However, almost every attempt the creators make at presenting Kirk as a real leader feels false and stupid. How he boards the enterprise, how he gets on the bridge and ultimately takes command, there is no specific moment where the outcome of his actions feel true and are really some of the most arguable moments of the movie. Those scenes are however easy, quick moments that any author of fan fiction could have penned, and Kirk replacing Spock on the bridge is an especially sloppy one.
<P>
Some of you fell for that though and I understand you don't ask for that much from this, you're just as happy with the shoddy tapestry JJ and company weave as much as a guy like Orci is just as happy to take your money for crapping it out.

See I would argue that First Contact wasn't a good film, and the best TNG film, though flawed as all hell, was Generations. First Contact just feels like the creators of it wanted to inject the Alien franchise into it but Generations has the spirit of the series at heart.
<P>
Also, you are omitting Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country, which is probably one of the best of the series right next to Khan.
<P>
Star Trek the motion Picture had moments of legitimate drama (Kirk vs Decker) though there was too much 2001 influence for most people - this doesn't mean it didn't have great sci-fi ideas though. Compared to Nu-trek's "Time travel again!" / "Black holes are fucking cool dude", TMP seems brilliant.

A simulation is still a video game, but if a pilot in training hacks the system of a simulator to change the rules and then sits back and eats an apple as it carries out it's programming, that isn't an example of a good future pilot. Kirk did change the programming of the test, but he did so because he didn't believe in the no-win scenario in that if you don't like the outcome of the game then in reality you change the rules. The point isn't that he cheated, but how he cheated.
<P>
However there's no brilliant moment where Kirk changes the playing field in any way which would give him a commendation of any kind, from any higher-up.
<P>
My argument still stands, you just had to get through the scene quickly so JJ could get to some special effects.

the Trio of Talent Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams fucked up the Kobayashi Maru and the Kirk character more generally.
For me, a good comparison is how the Kirk character is handled in Star Trek 3, which I think is one of the best depictions of Kirk in all the shows and films. He's clever and resourceful. It isn't fake movie moments like those laced throughout Abrams' Shit Trek. It's real stuff. One example of many I always liked: when Kirk and Spock beam off the Genesis planet as it's ripping apart, with Kirk saying 'activate beam' in Klingon to do it, and you realize he was listening to Kruge say it moments before.
Or that Kirk actually goes to the trouble of trying to convince his commander to let him go to the Genesis planet... you know? Thus stealing the Enterprise adds up as a last resort measure.
But poorly written Shit Trek will have none of this, instead giving us an arrogant, drunken Kirk magically ascending from a bar fight to captain. Just fucking clueless writing.

I apologize if I'm not being clear, so here's another attempt.
<P>
In Star Trek 2, we are given the perimeters of the test, and later told that Kirk is the only one to beat it. When Kirk and company are inside the genesis cave, Saavik asks how he beat the test and he confesses that he cheated - All we know is he reprogrammed the test, but not the implications of the reprogramming. We are given that he was given a Commendation for Original Thinking which sounds like as a cadet he didn't simply reprogram the simulation and then take a nap.
<P>
Now, what you wrote isn't canon so I can question it all I like. Am I to believe that Kirk actually turned the kobayashi maru scenario into a routine exercise where he could lean back and give the most modest of commands, essentially breezing through it while eating an apple? Am I to believe this wouldn't be immediately obvious to everyone around him, and who in the end would say "Hey Good Job, here's a prize." I do realize your following scene is a court martial the consequences of which are interrupted by the wiz bang pow of your villain Wants-to-be-Khan. Soon after YOUR Kirk, by the will of the screen writers, makes it to captain in 100 pages so who cares that he cheated right?
<P>
YOUR Kirk showed no strength, no strategic mind, not even any interest in command by cheating on that test, and no other scenes seem to correct this. He failed and then the writers bailed him out.
<P>
So do I have to spell it out? No! Simply cheating a major character test isn't enough and no further scene helps to correct this since all other ones are just as arguable.
<P>
What it wreaks of is the need for poppy moments, to get from point A to point B which any fan-fiction writer can do easy enough.

Should've pretended he really beat the test, lyng to his commanders in the process. In our version (which is not only consistant with canon, but is now canon itself), he is clearly NOT TRYING TO HIDE what he did. As he makes clear during the hearng afterwards, he was protesting the very concept of a no win scenario. The elements you are argung are implied by Trek 2 are simply in your mind.

"The elements you are arguing are implied by Trek 2 are simply in your mind"..
<P>
And yours as well. The scene is not described in wrath of Khan just the outcome, it was up to you to expand on it and for my money you took the easy way out. I'll take what you originally gave me, that Kirk doesn't appear to be cheating out of protest as you're suggesting now. He was going to beat the test and swagger out of there in order to make good on passing in three years. Spock was going to be the smartest guy in the room and catch him. Hilarity would be had (Kirk's swagger) and seeds of a friendship would be planted. Cut to court martial and Wanna-be-Khan to save Kirk from the chopping block. So you're over that plot point and can proceed to point B, but all the while what you really have is a way to save on pages, not to add anything of value to Kirk or those around him.
<P>
Also the point of the test in Star Trek 2 is a plot element that explains how they get out of a trap, and why Spock has to die at the end. In its employ Kirk we learn something we didn't know about Kirk, but the story also reinforced him as a gifted strategist who can really think outside the box. However, if he didn't believe in the test then why is he administering it as an admiral later in life?
<P>
And no, nothing you're written is cannon (wikipedia doesn't count) - I do believe you've made that point before. Why else establish this as an alternative universe as to not piss off the fan boys? Are you changing THAT position now?

Why not just have him jump from the captain's chair "That's right, I cheated! Your test is bogus man! Bogus!" As Spock puts the Vulcan neck pinch down on him
<P>
"And I'd cheat agaaaaaiiinnn!!!"
<P>
Gimmie a break Bob.

...did you every think that it's laid out like that because all the Plasma Coils and Warp Core Components would need a large and intricate Cooling System that would deliver and recycle large volumes of Coolant continuously?

I think you're part of the new management of my favorite steakhouse. They kept the name, updated the decor but instead of steak being on the menu, they changed everything to hamburger helper dishes.
<P>
Now, some people really like hamburger-helper stroganoff, and many don't remember the old place and what it was really capable of. However, don't act like you're in the same league just because you took the old name.

The scene with Scotty whizzing around the tubes was utterly pointless and did nothing to advance the plot or characters. It was a cheap "zing" of action/laughs where none was needed. Should have been edited out at the script stage, not filmed and included.

Kirk in the newer Trek film was not the same Kirk that was in ST2. He obviously grew up into a similar but different person in the alternate universe. What we saw when he reprogrammed the test is not the same way Shatner's Kirk did it. It's that simple, no need to argue it.

EXACTLY. ST 2009 was an alternate timeline the moment the Romulan ship encountered the USS Kelvin, though the loser brigade who read in some obscure fanfic or obscure paperback novel from 30 years ago that Kirk was BORN on Earth in Iowa so HOW DARE THEY MESS WITH THE INTRICATE TIMELINE that I've constructed in my addled brain (or more likely in a ridiculously messed up Powerpoint presentation/shrine on my bedroom wall in my parent's house).
As to you defenders of TMP as having the "true Trek spirit" and that it's "good"...that is your basic psychological problem (and why you don't fit in with normal people). You cannot see the fatal flaws of your beloved product (you're like Tron apologists). TOS shit doesn't smell according to you. Not only is TMP dramatically inert (not just as "Star Trek" or SciFi but as basic DRAMA construction) but it rips off (poorly) a far better cheaper episode of the series and then has delusions of Kubrickian/2001 glory (talk about HUBRIS).
People on screen gawking at another screen with a light show/screensaver for an hour is NOT drama of any kind. Drama is conflict, drama is character. Childish Philosophy 101 dawdlings is NOT compelling drama. Drama is transformation. Yeah Decker/Ilia's cosmic 3 way or as one critic called it, the "G rated, obscured by light (maybe JJ's lens flares were an "homage" to this crap) $40 million f*ck" was (literal) "transformation", but Decker and Ilia (aka Proto Riker/Troi) were not characters of any depth or empathy. They were pretty, vacant Ken and Barbie dolls awkwardly grafted onto the existing Trek cast just to be sacrificed.
It the Trek Braintrust had any balls, KIRK or Spock (more logically) would have "merged" with V'ger (still wondering, as David "Mr. Tribble" Gerrold pointed out, how a super powerful, super intelligent alien/robot hybrid can't in 300 or so years, figure out to clean a smudge of dirt on it's faceplate and realize it's name is "Voyager" not V'ger") but that would destroy "the franchise' possibilities, wouldn't it.
Seriously you ALL need to get a life. The movie's 3 years old, it was a success for the studio...new people who mock trekkies losers checked it out and most liked what they saw. The sequel is coming. You may not like him but JJ has real clout and success in the business (it's not like you've done any better from your parents basement). THIS is Trek now. You don't like it, get off the bus until the next incarnation. NO body (the general public, least of all the studio) CARES what you geeks say. You don't have the numbers to affect box office success (see Fanboy "gems" like "Scott Pilgrim"...CANONIZED by you losers, ignored by the public = bomb), unlike say "Twilight" fans, whom you mock but CRUSH you in sheer box office pumping muscle. For all your angry noise, the era of the 'hardcore no life geek-a-saurus" is long past. You're the convention loser joke from "Galaxy Quest" asking about "continuity issues" from a 30 year old show. Trek the Franchise will go on fine without you. That you keep kicking at it and kicking at it 3 years later with such pathological RAGE seems to indicate you have REAL psychological issues. Go watch your 500 or so hours of non JJ trek on DVD/Blu and wallow in the comfortable warm backwash bath of it's own cheezy regurgitated mediocrity.
You'd all be collectively funny if you weren't so pathetically sad.

I agree with many of your critiques, but the fact that you took the time to write such such a lengthy and completely unnecessary rant in a st talkback kinda makes you even more pathetic than the people you're raging against. Free speech I guess but life is short after all.

you opinion and you're entitled.
I didn't think my post was particularly "long" and it was logically laid out, unlike the knee jerk "and yer mama too" anger most Trekkies losers resort to...
"Trek" (new or old) is hardly the center of my universe but when AICN post some Trek news, I love to toss a little kerosene at the white hot, almost having a stroke Rage from truly damaged fools like Asi (I guess the IDIC mantra pushed by Trek doesn't apply if you're a raging rabid fanboi)....basically it's fun to bait/take the piss out of blind self important zealots whether it's a B grade Cheeze TV show turned movie franchise or a holier than thou, hypocritical religious order.

lecture on dramaturgical theory ('Drama is transformation' -- got that, everyone?) bends over backwards to insult ST fans and goes out of its way to find flaws in TOS and TMP, but (what a surprise) completely ignores all of the dramatic flaws in Abrams' Shit Trek.
You're the one who can't see the fatal flaws of your beloved product. But I won't belabor all of Shit Trek's screenplay issues, since everyone knows what they are even if some assclowns choose to ignore them or make apologies for them. Awful screenplay, and not just because it bastardizes Star Trek. It's bad on its own terms.
You say, 'THIS is Trek now.' My response to that is: fuck you. I'm a paying Trek fan and I don't for two seconds accept Starscream, Ironhide and Jar Jar as the lords of the ST universe. They will pass from the scene soon enough, and their ridicule-worthy movies with them.

But canon? Nah man. Get the hell out of here. Its a retelling of an already existing piece of Star Trek CANON with your alternate spin put on top of it. Please, don't treat us like we're stupid, because we're not.

Funyn that some of the Bad Robot stooges brough up Shakespeare to the discussion. Shakespeare wrote populist plays of the time. His work was destined for the low brow public. But just because his work was for the masses didn't mean he would slouch about it, that he wouldn't make it good and intelligent.
So, Shakespeare is the poster boy and the patron saint of INTELLIGENT ENTERTAIMENT. Sometimes drama, sometimes comedy, sometimes historical epic, even the times' version of a slasher movie (the play Titus Andronicus would be seen as a slasher movie of the time because of the whole amount of killin and torture porn that happens in it).
Contrary to the popular opinion of ignorants, Shakespeare is not high art high brow stuff. It's smart and quality popular entertaiment. So, in that regard, Star Trek TOS IS Shakespere in the very literal sense of the notion, in that it follows the very spirit of which Shakespeare wrote his plays: to be quality smart entertaiment. And that is even lampshaded by the show itself with the constant quotes from Shakespeare's plays.
So, next time any Bad Robot stooge comes claiming that Star Trek is not supposed to be Shakespeare, YES IT IS SUPPOSED TO!
So there.

Good to see from you (and some other compadres here) the love for STAR TREK 3: THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK. That movie has been unjustly maligned allt his years, and all because of that stupid "odd-numbered Trek movies are bad" dogma bullshit.

And so by chance they look exactly like brewery beer vats? You got to be kidding me!
The former ST movies had the trouble to build a engine room set that was futuristic looking, in which you could buy the notion it hold some super-powerful futuristic energy source that could propultion a futuristic starship. In Abrams Trek, the engine room looks like a brewery with the interior resembling more like a steam engine ship, even with rebits and all.
You Bad Robot appologists and Abrams Trek fanboys, give me a break!

"He (NuKirk) obviously grew up into a similar but different person in the alternate universe"
Dude, that's a contradiction in terms. Either he's similiar or different. So what is it?
But i understand why you following the Orci/Kurzman/Abrams lead will make such a contradiction statement, because that's what they did too. They never settled the issue themselves, they never made a final position on it. They just threw stuff at the screen and see what sticks.

...the audiences that were there the first time around, tend to look back at the originals with the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia.
Of course, the original is going to be better, because of that simple fact; it was the original and when you actually sit down and watch these old movies, they are just as "flawed", if you could call it that.
For me, Star Trek 09, was an excellent movie, MILES better than Insurrection or Nemesis. In fact, it was the best Trek since the TNG finale "All Good Things..."

I also love the fact the Abrams Trek fanboys always compare it with the TNG movies, for some weird ass reason nobody can understand. Shouldn't the fucking Jar Jar Abrams movie be compared with the other previous TOS movies? Wouldn't that make much more sense? But thenm, their precious Abrams Trek bullshit would look bad in comparison, so that's why they go for deceiving tactics. Deceiving is a typical attitude from the Abrams Trek Fanboy Zombie.
"I think that, generally, when there is a reboot/remake the audiences that were there the first time around, tend to look back at the originals with the rose-tinted glasses of nostalgia."
Bullshit! If somebody do that, it's stupid. Only quality should matter. And in so many cases, the original movies were better movies, because the remakes are rushed job made by filmmakers who didn't had the same passion for the movie the original filmmakers had for the original movie.
Other cases, the remake/reboot is better. Case in point, Nolan's Batman movies or Carpenter's THE THING.

You will see that when adjusted for inflation, Star Trek 2009 IS the most successful Trek movie to date, with TMP right behind it.
Don't throw budget bullshit in my face, we are going strictly by money grossed, not PROFIT, that's a different issue, so don't pull that card.
I hate when people use the whole profitability argument....you know...oh it cost this much and only made this much so it's really a flop. Shut the fuck up with that bullshit. That's a studio problem. They allow all these inflated budgets and make it so all of these movies MUST make like 300 million just to turn a profit. That's fucking ridiculous. If a movie makes over $200 million...hell sometimes it only needs to be over 150 million, it's generally a success as far as audiences, not PROFITS are concerned. So anyone who uses that argument to say a movie is a flop is a fucking idiot.
End of debate.
This post was not a statement on the quality of said film, only on its box office performance.

And I dont care they they were Next Gen movies, they are fucking STAR TREK movies, period.
They are all open to comparison to one another IMO...I don't buy this whole it's a next gen not and original cast movie. Bullshit. Trek is Trek. Period.
Ok, that's all from me, I WILL NOT get sucked into this debate YET AGAIN. It's not fun, it's not amusing, it's just tedious and boring and pointless.

I haven't seen Cowboys and Aliens, but I hear it's not particularly good. I have seen Transformers however and that shit is god awful - Seriously, what the fuck was that mess? In the case of Transformers, I'll use Batman as an analogy: You can either make Tim Burton's Batman, which though flawed takes from the source material and pays homage to Batman's better moments, or you can be cynical and go with the campy 60's style Batman which is what Joel Schumacher and Orci's buddy Akiva went with, which up till the 80's was the people's Batman. So to me this is an argument over a populist mentality. In the case of the 60's Batman show, it was very popular but not particularly great story-wise; it was just fun.. I see Orci's version of Star Trek as the same: It's shallow but has all the Robert Mckee points of story telling to wax over it's poorer moments and then has great explosions and flares and flash that most people really enjoy. This is the people's StarTrek. Screw a meaty story, to hell with the heady sci-fi just show me the cool ship in space and get to the battle scenes. Unfortunately the rest of us wanted more substance then it, or Orci is capable of..a level of story telling we've seen from the older series but saw fall away after Gene Roddenbury passed and the focused changed to appeal to more action-movie fans who wouldn't other-wise see a Star Trek film.
<P>
It's certainly possible to do both. It's been done in the past with Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered country, and most recently with movies like Serenity.
<P>
I would love to be surprised by JJ's StarTrek 2 I just doubt I will be. I know just as sure as day it'll be a Wrath of Khan remake. You think I'm wrong? I'll be happy to but chances are I'm probably right.
<P>
I'll see you all when a trailer comes out.

it is not the most sucessful ST movie because of how much the fucking movie costed. Which is, by far, the most expensive ST movie ever made. The most expensive, and yet hardly looks more epic then the lesser budget entries. which make sone quetion , where the fuck they spent the money on? it was so mispent, they had to cut corners and shot in a beer brewery, for fuck's sakes!
Star Trek: The Motion Picture has 2/3rds of Abrams Trek budget and still they mannaged to make a truly epic looking movie, with all the V'ger and inumerous sfx shots, nogt to menjtion they actually build a engine room set.
Abrams Trek and the false issue of it's psuedo-most sucessful ST movie bullshit can go fuck itself in the ass. Everything about that movie in it's support is based on falsehoods and lies.

the day Abrams fucks up TNG by making another SW remake, then it's quite apt to compare it to a TNg movie, because that's the obvious comparison.
But so far Abrams is merely content to fuck up TOS, as in he made a movie with the TOS characters (or whatever athetic atempt at the TOs characters passes in his movie), so, in that regard, no, not every ST is St. TOS is TOS, TNg is TNG. Inside the whole ST universe, each is their own thing. This is why one is called TOs and the other is called TNG. D'uhhh and all that.
So, yeah, Abrams Trek has to becompared with the previous TOS Tv shows and movies. that's the honest thing., But since when anything to do with Abrams Trek, be the movie, it's filmakers or it's fandom has anything to do with honesty? or common sense, for that matter.
you know the movie is imensely flawed. you are smart fwellow yourself. so why you still feel this need to defend it? have you rewatched it recently? a second view, to set thing straigh? and really, why you defend it so, evne if in such a passive way? is it all because of LOST?

I'm no fan of Robert McKee, but i don't think he supports the notion of a script should have as many plot holes and deux ex machina coincidence bullshit as the Orci's script for Abrams Trek is plagued with. in fact, few things infuriate McKee more then convinient coincidences driving a plot.
I thing McKee's teachings about scriptwriting has been more a curse then a benefit to scriptwriting, beause he basically teaches to write cliches formulaic scripts (yeah, i read the book). However, even he would find himself disgusted by the bullshit that is the script for Abrams Trek. McKee would kick Orci's ass. and you know why, because he's BRIAN COX!!

So sorry, in the case of Transformers they had a great collection of comics and plots to pull from, but instead they took the ridiculously laughable Cartoon (which was the starting point, but certainly didn't have to be the end) and created a skeleton for Michael Bay action sequences... oh, and added a dash of Spielburgian sentimentality to make the beard happy. Why? Well who wants a good Transformers story? It's a fucking toyline turned Cartoon right? So you can take the point of view that the Cartoon was what made it popular or you can try to build something bigger then your source material. ] I don't think Orci and Kurtzman do this with Transformers, nor do they do it with Star Trek. This is also what I mean when I say Orci is apathetic. He cares about his ego sure enough, but not about the properties he's playing with. It's a pay check and a notch on his resume, nothing more.
<P>
So there's a history here and the only reason I brought up Transformers in the first place.

The last time I watched Trek was a few months ago. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I still like it, my opinion has not changed, nor will I go into my reasons for liking it, the point is moot.
As far as the films success, you CANNOT use the profitability reasoning as a measure of success. Oh it cost this much and only made this much blah blah blah. As I posted before, In adjusted dollars, it is the highest grossing, therefore, MOST SUCCESSFUL Trek film to date.
Don't throw that Its not the most successful because of how much it cost bullshit in my face, please. I can concede that maybe it was not the most PROFITABLE Trek film because of it's budget. But as far as attendance and overall box office gross, it is the most successful Trek film to date. It's profitability is only applied to the studio and how much THEY made from it. That may be how THEY measure success, but it's not a true measure.
Numbers don't lie. Go to Box Office Mojo and check it, I did.
This is not in defense of the movie and it's quality, just a statement on the success of the film, and it was a success.
I'd love to stay and debate with you some more Asi, but I got to leave one job and head to another. You take care, see you soon.

Even if that were true, what does that have to do with the quality of the movie? There are plenty of good movies that bombed at the box office, and plenty of bad movies that were hugely successful, so that argument does nothing to support your like or dislike of Star Trek.
But here's the truth: it was neither a bomb nor a massive success. It WAS successful as a Star Trek movie. It easily made profit, and the good will built up by this one will earn the next one a massive opening weekend. Mark my words. See you in 2013.

since when i ever sid that Abrams Shittrek is a box office failure. i didn't said that. i have said that it's an unremarkable profit. the movie neither made that much money the fanboys claim it made nor it flopped. it just sits there in the middle of "averageness sucess", as in, nothing particulary spectacular about it. the movie's box offic result is pure banality in regard to blokcbuster box office result. the b´fanboys, because they fblindly folow whatever jar jar abrams farts at their direction, suddently turned that into this supposed gigantic sucess of which gigantic is only the size of their misguided gullibility.
"It WAS successful as a Star Trek movie"
In the mosty banal sense of the word, even by Star Trek standards. and most of that has to do with the fact the movie was so (needlessly) expensive to make. the huge budget eat away the profits,with an end result that is compeltly unremarkable, so much so that only ST 5 mannaged to underperform in budget to box office ration in all of the TOS movies.
Allthis talk of Abrams Trek being very sucessful is pious lies told by the Abrams Trek Fanboy Zombies.

actually, that is a measure of sucess. not of quality, of course. suces and quality are not mutuially dpendent. it would be a simpler wor´ld if it was so.
So, pray tell me, what makes you enjoy Abrams Trek so much? the obnoxious assholeness of the characters? the plot holes? the rampant stupidity of the plot? the coincidences? the deux ex machinas? the michal bay editing? the lens flares? the brewery? the pharmacy looking bidge? the pissing on classic trek? the pissing on good storytelling? the constant disrespect and disinterest show to star trek? the slavish love for star wars as seen in every fucking scene? the rent-a-kahn villain? the black-hole-that's-also-conviniently-a-wormhole nonsense? the melodrama? the from-cadete-to-starship-captain-in-24-hours idioticy? he needléss shakycam in scenes that had no call for it? the yellow outer space? the movie's contant emphasis on brainless emotions over reason and logic, aka, dumb is good attitude?
really,i'm at a loss for what in all the stuff that's in the movie one could mistake it for good and why one should had a good time watching it without feeling being called a retard by an holywood richboy.

hope for the best. i know you are now in a rough spot in your life and this economy is not helping matters. best of luck and keep your chin up, buddy. and you deserve better entertaiment to lift your spirits then bulslhit like abrams trek. try INCEPTION instead, it makes you feel smart for liing a smart movie. feeling smart is great!

Asi uses whatever he wants to support his positions, and ignores anything that disagrees with him, or even his own errors. No one without the moral courage to admit their mistakes should be taken seriously in the slightest, which is a shame, because other than that failing, he seems a clever guy.
Clearly, millions of people enjoyed J.J.'s Trek, and their opinions are as valid as anyone on this Talkback. People here routinely mistake their opinion ("I liked it" "I didn't like it ") for the truth ("it was good" "it was bad"). It's a joke, and a fun one as long as you don't take it seriously.
See you at the next Trek!

So, "no one's comparing JJTrek with TOS movies, only to TNG movies"?
Let's review and Cliff Notes what I and many have said before re: TOS ShatTrek movies.
TMP - Inert Static drama free Philosophy 101 shite ripping off a better TV episode and having the hubris (or maybe it was Robert Wise' late career creeping senility) to try and ape 2001. WAY worse than JJtrek (though a fave of the clueless Hardcore TOS apologist trolls who wouldn't know good drama if it kicked them in their plastic Spock ears)
Khan - still the best of the Treks period(JJ Trek being #2), but also rating high on the cheeze scale with the "Ham vs Ham' Shatner/Montelban acting duel.
ST3 - Dull, rote plotting, wholesale character changes (Saavik, not just an actor change but an ENTIRE character transplant; Kirk being "at peace" with Spock's death at the end of Khan to "tormented/obsessed" by it mere days later), campy (not "threatening") bad guy Klingons, borderline FX/production value, warmed over score (Horner collecting a cheque regurgitating his excellent Khan score, itself a knock off/mashup of his own "Battle Beyond the Stars" and "Aliens" scores) and one of the most wan anticlimactic endings in science fiction cinema history.
Whale Trek 4 - Fine...if you like the Mad Magazine "Spoof Trek" or "SitComTrek" (which, like JJ Trek, MANY non trekkies did, grossing more than ANY other Trek until JJTrek).
Part 5 "Why would God Need A spaceship" - the ABSOLUTE nadir of ANY Star Trek in ANY medium (well maybe tied with the space hippie episode or "Spock Brain"...is missing!!!). THIS is the movie all you patheticTrekkies should be piling on with vitriol, even after a almost 2 decades...JJTrek is "Citizen Kane" (or at least "Magnificent Ambersons) relative to this black hole of crap.
A senior citizen Nichelle Nichols doing that embarrasing "naked fan dance" in the desert?...the "soap opera quality" Long Lost, never EVER mentioned in 30 years "half brother" of Spock? VFX that looked like they were done by a blind kid on an Amiga Video Toaster...and a loose collection of skits (or maybe they were "workshop rehersals") instead of anything resembling a "script" (and lets not forget the Ham Fisted direction by your fearless toupee wearing on camera leader).
Part 6: The Recycled Title (was "Khan's" original title). Serviceable, but any sense of elegy for the "final voyage" for this "legendary" crew massively diluted with awkward logic free "comic relief" bits (Kirks whole reaction to the prison planet - wanna get laid but the exotic alien.. the STOOPID sight gag of "Starfleets BEST crew" scrambling through old DICTIONARIES on the bridge to "fake their way" through Klingon. Are those blinking lights behind you Christmas trees the bridge?? Aren't they THE most advanced computers in the Federation with an inbuilt UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR for at least the last 30 years in your "continuity" (this makes Asi's much repeated hate on for NuSpock's "Facinating"/rotating cockpit chair look like brilliant Tracey/Hepburn repartee compared to Pt 5's "attempted" comic relief).
Add that to (again) cheap ass looking FX and production value (BTW do Klingons always act angry and badass to compensate for the fact they bleed BRIGHT PINK BLOOD? Who made THAT "artistic" call?) Are they Klingons or My Little Ponies??
Shakespeare: His work WAS "populist and lowbrow"...JUST LIKE JJ's TREK. It wasn't trying to be "pretentious philosophical ART"...it was a slam bang space film with familiar staid 60's characters rewritten for "mass entertainment" for today's film goers (JUST like the Bard - putting butts in the seats for a fee). The whole black hole, red matter time travel plot WAS sketch...but scientifically, so is the entire concept of "Warp Drive" or "teleportation" or "warp drive powered time travel" (another often used TrekTrope, including "whale trek"..). It's not an episode of PBS NOVA. You can shoot TONS of "science holes' in almost ANY Star Trek. Hardly a reason for the white hot Hate On some of your zealots have.
And according to Asi, TOS was also "Shakespearian" because it QUOTED Shakespeare....so anyone can take an average torture porn flick, drop in a few Bard "homage" lines and it's "Shakespearian" too? Good to know.
Face it, you harcoreloser Trekkies HATED JJ Trek not because it was so much more "inferior" to "classic TOSTrek"(if you look at it clinically, it had about equal percentage of eye rolling "pseudo science", campy acting, some major script or production weakness, be it plot, character motivation or just a "cheap" or unconvincing "look") or but because it took FICTIONAL characters you unnaturally (and creepily) have a weird One Way imagined "relationship" with and made wholesale changes and on top of that (and it really blew your tiny little brains)dared to change or COMPLETELY WIPE OUT the carefully constructed (fanboy only) "canon/continuity" you constructed in your fevered little brains.
Looks at ALL the previous incarnations of Trek (TV, animated, comics, novels etc). Tapping into my Trekkie friend's knowledge here (and he LIKED JJTrek), WILDLY contradictory history, character behavior, historical record (EG when did the "Khan" Eugenics war happen again? 1990"s? Funny things looked pretty normal when Voyager visited Earth 2009...no wasteland...no aftermath of the world war against "genetic Supermen"... and when DS9 time traveled to 2020 something to find a poverty soaked broken civilization? Before or after Eugenics war? How'd they go from shiny modern 2009 to something out of "Children of Men" in less than 20 years? What about Cochrane's first Warp flight? Was THAT the aftermath (30 or 40 years late) the eugenics war or was it yet ANOTHER world war??? How come there was no mention EVER about the MASSIVELY destructive attack on 22nd century earth that percipated "Quantum Leap Enterprises" season long mission to stop the "next wave"? Trek's 50 years is rewritten multiple times in it's own retcon and contradiction..why not JJ's retcon?....because (and only because) it's not the same old same old familiar warm bath of YOUR out of touch, no one except a tiny group of mouthbreather fanboys cares about (even though JJTrek made it "relevant" for the wider movie going public)...you know Shakespeares "low brow populist" crowd.
Jesus asimov, your arguments are BECOMING contradictory Retcon....You and your militant JJ hatin' Trekkies are becoming more and more of a one note joke...No one's pulling your beloved Trek off the BluDVD shelf ala Lucas and the original trilogy. It's still there. It still exists. Buy some more discs, wait for the NEXT reboot/retcon and let other newer fans (and they FAR outnumber you) enjoy a (probable) trilogy that appeals to them in a way OldFogeyTrek NEVER did before.

First off, you're taking all of this much too seriously, which is what happens when you pay attention to what Asi says.
As for Trek continuity, yes it is wildly contradictory at times - it's entertainment, not history. As a long time Trek fan I will admit to watching 'Enterprise' in its first season and yelling 'That's not how that happened!!! WTF!!' constantly at the TV screen. As a result I quickly abandoned it, only to creep back in near the end of the series to discover it really wasn't so bad after all (I'm a sucker for 'Mirror' episodes, and that was what drew me back in).
I had sort of the same experience with TNG, watching religiously at first, until the cheese overwhelmed me, and I couldn't watch anymore. Then I caught 'Yesterday's Enterprise' and was like 'Holy shit! That was awesome!' They totally had me back.
I blame Berman and Braga for the slow decline of the franchise. DS9 was the best of all post-TOS incarnations (IMHO), because by all indications, Behr told them all to fuck off. If you notice, DS9 seems to have the least amount of continuity shit in it, the episodes you mention above being the exception, and those were closer to the TOS 'timeline' than the other shows.
When JJ Trek came out, I was soooo not interested. My buddy, who doesn't know squat about Trek kept pushing me to watch it - "Dude, you'll like it!"
Someone in my family bought me the DVD as a gift, knowing my love for Trek, and it sat unwatched on the shelf for months until I finally gave in and watched it. The verdict: not as horrible as I thought, but a popcorn flick at best.
Yes we (and I'll cop to some amount of hubris in speaking for most TOS fans) love our 'Old Folks'. We DO have a 'relationship' with them. We grew up with them, protested when they disappeared from TV, cheered when they returned on the big screen. Yes, I'll admit to staring at my watch a few times during 'The Motionless Picture'. Yes, ST5 was the worst of the bunch (and we could argue that Shat got screwed over budget-wise, hence the bad FX).
It's not about any of that.
TOS had heart. Soul. You belived that these people cared for each other, believed in each other, 'been through death and life together.'
I don't get that with JJ Trek. I get that they just 'met'. Only time will tell if we see that happen. I don't see it as a sustainable franchise, in the movie sense, especially if we're gonna wait 6 years for each film to come out. And you CAN make people care about characters in the 'short' span of 3 films - look at the Star Wars films (which is probably why they ripped the Trek plot from them).
I belive Trek works best on the small screen, where you have a chance to develop the relationships to the point where we care about them. JJ's Kirk is a smug asshole, Spock is a gigantic prick, Uhura's all 'ghetto', the rest of the characters are throwaways (with the exception of Urban's McCoy, because he did a great impersonation of De Kelley). It's okay that they're 'different', if you buy into the 'alternate universe' stuff. They're just not likeable people. I don't care what happens to them. And that's not the actor's fault - it's the writer's/director's. If they come up with a good script, that could all change. But based on the track record of the participants,that's not gonna happen anytime soon.
So if you liked it - good for you: welcome to Trek fandom. But don't shit on us 'old folks' - we made 'your' Trek possible in the first place.
Enjoy.

Right on, dude. Asimov mistakes his opinions for truth, and forgets that the movies are just entertainment. They struck a serious chord of optimism in the 60's, after the near-horror of the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were, quite understandably, embraced by an entire generation of geeks (myself among them). But at some point you grow up and realize not only are they just stories, but they're stories created by dozens if not hundreds of different minds, with wonky continuity and "science" that includes so many asshat fantasies (FTL drive, time travel, "gods", alternate realities, star-spanning empires, intelligent machines that can be beaten with "tricky" human logic, and on and on), manifesting in a half-dozen TV forms, movies, comic books, and novels (including my own)...at some point you grow the fuck up.
J.J.'s Trek was fun, for the first time in twenty years. For that alone, I applaud him. Anyone who ever "learned" anything from Trek needs to, in Shatner's classic line from SNL: "Get a life!"

..and the Defence rests because the PERsecution (loserTrekkies) just proved my point. You can't even see or acknowledge all the SHITE that TOS ShatTrek has given us over the years. Your Pathetic Fanboy Myopia is frighteningly Cult-like. If only the more insane ones in your cult WOULD drink the Kool Aid and just go away...
So, to be clear, are you defending "Star Trek 5"? or the Motionless picture?? Any credibility you may have had just evaporated TrekTroll...I'm LAUGHING at the inferior intellect.....Dweeby pathetic TReKKIES! are soo much fun (and EASY) to bait into a raging froth...calm down and go play with your Trek dolls/play set now (too bad you're 45 years old, living with mom and girls don't even acknowledge your existence)....

"lowbrow and populist"...I'm sure JJ himself would agree that was what he was going for in his version of Trek...
You can certainly have that, if you like. Shit on toast is still shit.
Again - I don't 'hate' on JJ Trek. Reading and comprehension go hand in hand.
For most of us.
Again - you wouldn't even have an argument to make if it wasn't for TOS.
That really bugs the shit out of you, doesn't it?
You're like the 'Mirror' version of Asi.....

You say:
_____________________________________
...basically it's fun to bait/take the piss out of blind self important zealots whether it's a B grade Cheeze TV show turned movie franchise or a holier than thou, hypocritical religious order.
AND:
Dweeby pathetic TReKKIES! are soo much fun (and EASY) to bait into a raging froth..
____________________________
Your arguments and opinions are rather hollow. The ony thing you have succeeded at was your stated goal - to piss people off, with really lame arguments that somehow make you feel important and superior. You are not an enlightened person, only someone who likes to kick hornet's nests.
In other words, a sociopathic punkass who pushes buttons to make people upset because you find it so easy to do and entertaining.
How special for such a self-important, rabble rouser who is what he rails against.
Really, really hollow baiting arguments posing as opinion, my punkass blowhard.

Let's just say I'm a bit more to the right than you seem to be - but I respect your right to your opinions. At least you state them AS opinions,and not fact.
I don't engage anyone in the TB's where politics/religion and such are involved - too much vitriol. But that seems to be the case everywhere these days...
*sigh*

Thanks for being open minded - my best friend is a Libertarian, by the way. And a failry devout Christian, but I repect him for his sense of humor about religion, maybe not so much politics - he gets snappy very quickly, but then again, so do I.
I am probably farther to the left of left than most, but I'm no commie....
Yeah, I also yearn for times when political discourse were not so pundit fueled...
To bad there isn't more compromise from the right.... they seem stuck on political purity while the citizens suffer -- on both sides of the spectrum...

The first Star Trek film was the best you stupid motherfucker. That is my opinion.
But, of course, everyone knows for a fact that you are a stupid motherfucker...
And sure, there were some bad ST episodes in every incarnation....
Glad you agree with me, and every other fucking Star Trek fan, because no ST fan is stupid enough, as you assume, to believe that every Star Trek episode was superior.
Bootlicker shithead...

..for again proving my point "myopic Trekkie loser" who wouldn't know Good Drama if it bit his overweight red shirt wearing ass. TMP was the BEST? At what? Putting an audience (of non Geekloser TrekkIESSSS) to sleep with a plotless Plot and goofy non sensical "philosophising"?
And you and your new best buttboybuddy (hey to each his and his own if you've decided to go with that life; hope you and your bubbyhubby will be happy together) JOAQUIM and your ilk of loserTOStrekkeeeeez position that "the only way to defend the hated JJTrek is to attack 40 years of oldTrek"...YOU invited people who like JJTrek (and there are MANY, maybe not here in Losertown of AICN but MANY people think it's the Best Trek Movie to date) to attack ALL the SHATTrek weaknesses (and there are LEGION) with your constant psychotic nitpicking hate rants on JJTrek.
All the weaknesses you attack about JJTrek (well except your sad Fanboy whining that NuKirk doesn't look/behave EXACTLY like 60's Shatner) can easily apply to about 80 % of ANY Geezer Trek stories/incarnations, be they episodes or movies or novels but somehow, you can forgive all the crap you attack in JJ Trek when it's in OLD fogey trek...Your hypocrisy is on full display and comically staggering in it's hubris. Am I baiting you? Are you all in an angry froth now?? Was that my goal all along? Inviso text below.....(that 60 percent of you brain dead loser actually looked for precious "invisotext" makes me laugh even harder than you non sensical attacks and 'arguments". SEe Ya LOSERS!!!! Don't let the cool kids Wedgie you too much!!!